I was once against the idea of splitting Paso Robles into 11 AVA’s but have since changed my mind. The one thing that changed my mind is that ‘Paso Robles’ still needs to appear on the label. The average wine consumer does not care about AVA’s, they pay more attention to area…like Napa, Sonoma, Paso Robles, etc. So I’m happy that ‘Paso Robles’ still has to appear on the label.
So, cheers to moving forward. I’m interested to see how this impacts Paso Robles.
You can read about it on the TTB website here, or you can see what Wines and Vines has to say about it here.
But the way I’m reading it is only 4 out of the 11 new AVA’s will have the name “Paso Robles” in the title block? As I said before and as was also reiterated in the Wines and Vines article, “this will only serve to confuse the [buying] public.” Not sure it’s the best thing for Paso wines.
Steve, there was another thing added to the new law that says ‘Paso Robles’ has to be displayed on the label as prominently as the AVA. 4 of the AVA’s have Paso Robles in the name but this will apply for ALL.
Matt…I don’t see that anywhere in the wording of TTB’s documents. Maybe that will come out in the final draft but per the e-mail notification from the TTB dated today, it is not listed as such. It would seem to be a bit awkward to list “Paso Robles Santa Margarita District”, “Paso Robles Templeton Gap District”, etc. The final rule is effective November 10th so maybe it will be in it then?
Steve, did you read Jason Haas’ blog post? Here is an excerpt: “One risk in the creation of new AVA’s within an existing one is that the existing AVA — into the marketing of which the local wineries have invested enormous amounts of time and money — will lose much of its significance as many wineries abandon that appellation name to make a name for their new, smaller one. Happily, Paso Robles won’t lose its identity — or the accumulated marketing capital we’ve all built over the last three decades — thanks to a conjunctive labeling law passed by the California assembly with the encouragement of the Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance in 2007. Conjunctive labeling means that wineries who choose to use one of the new AVA’s will also be required to use “Paso Robles” as significantly. This law was modeled on one passed for the Napa Valley in 1990 that has been widely credited with helping maintain Napa as the most powerful brand in American wine. “
Great photo!
While I have no basis to compare this to, 11 new AVAs seems excessive at first glance. Like you, I’m interested in the resulting impact particularly because there are several new AVAs in various stages of approval here in Virginia. A new AVA name sounds all jazzy and great but, at the end of the day, do consumers care? (maybe, maybe not)
Frank, thank you and I do agree. In my opinion the average consumer is not a ‘wine geek’ therefore not really caring about an AVA. In fact, it is my experience that the average consumer, if they care at all, care about the area (Napa, Sonoma, Paso Robles) or the vineyard if it’s a well known vineyard (James Berry Vineyard is an example of a well known vineyard here)…not an AVA name. The fact that they will make wineries still put Paso Robles on the label made me much happier. Paso Robles is still not a well known area and to remove that would make all the marketing done over the decades worthless.